Jodie-Foster Movie Reviews

this movie is like so the not so awesome.we are watching it in school(me go to mater dei academy)and when i go home my ears hurt so much from all the... singing.i wish it only had like no singing and like what is up with the charectors dos man it is like way out there if ya know what i'm sayin.so i would not like refer this to anyone.if yall wanna watch tom sawyer watch the one with jtt.

I just re-watched this film and wow, what a treasure of a film!

With songs written by the famous Sherman Brothers (the brilliant Disney songwriters who did "Mary Poppins" et al.) and the charm of Johnny Whitaker as Tom Sawyer (1970's tv show"Family Affair") this is the best version of the classic Mark Twain tale I've ever seen on film. You really feel like you're right there in Hannibal, Missouri.

Great casting all the way around and a fantastic musical as well.

I originally saw this when I was about nine and it completely caught my imagination both then and now. I'd never forgotten several catchy songs from the film, such as "Free Bootin.' Great stuff all the way around.

My only complaint is that this film is not currently available on DVD, as I'd love to see and hear this treasure of a film in full visual and audio clarity.

This movie was playing at Radio City Music Hall back in the days of the movie/stage show formt. It was also presented in 70mm on that huge Radio City screen. I remember how impressed i was with that opening scene with the steam boat going down the river and you see Tom running thru the field and the music builds more and more. Wow,,,,what a great movie!I've seen many versions of "Tom Sawyer" but this one seems to be the best ever brought to the screen. Maybe because it's a musical. Whatever made this so successful back then you will not be disappointed by it's gradure and scope. A must for ever American kid and adult too. This is as red, white and blue as it gets and now must be the most politically incorrect movie ever made. (hehe) Buy it before some group puts a ban on it. Which should want you to buy this for the kids even more. They don't make them like this anymore.

It must have been quite difficult to translate such a complex story into a +/- 120 minute movie. The actors (some of them were popular actors of the 80's) however, gave a better-than-usual performances. I found scenes between John and Frannie as a bit disturbing, I wonder if this was caused by the difficulties of transposing words and prose into "scenes".

For some reason, this John Irving adaptation is not nearly as well known or as well regarded as George Roy Hill's excellent version of "The World According to Gap," however it is, for me, the better of the two films. As with "Garp," the director and adaptor, the late Tony Richardson (Most famous for "Tom Jones" and "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"), faced the enormous challenge of compressing a huge and hugely complex novel into a limited time span. I don't know if this problem could ever be avoided and still result in a two hour feature film and even here the shock of compression (The entire first chapter takes place within the credits sequence alone) is rather jarring, especially if you have just read the novel. But there is so much that is good and beautiful here, too. There are scenes here that are as perfect as anything Mr. Richardson ever committed to film. It truly is unfortunate that this film is unavailable; I purchased my copy in the remainder bin of some store about two years ago just on a whim, not realizing how scarce it had become. It was one of Tony Richardson's last films before his untimely death several years ago and is an enduring tribute to an extraordinary director. It is a film of rare beauty that captures a little of what Mr. Irving was getting at and so, so much more, too.

It horrifies, it warms the heart. It's crude... yet so innocent. It goes against every moral you have, yet is perhaps one of the best "family" type films I have seen. Indescribable, completely ambivilent. At the end, you wonder "what was THAT?" And yet, you'll never forget it... EVER.

Garner made 2 movie for disney. if your on the look out for good family movie that are fun, no cursing or nudity, a little action and a little romance... you want Castaway Cowboy, CC not One Little Indian, OLI.

CC is a nice movie about a cowboy that ends up stuck on an island. He shows the nice widow woman how to start a cattle ranch instead of tring to far or fish.

OLI is very boring. Not one of my three kids stayed for the end. And isn't that the true test of a movie. It isn't totally what mom or I like, it is also what they will like enough to sit and watch and enjoy.

James Gardner makes this sporadic paced comedy putter along. It does have some good lines and pranks if you can stay awake with the dead fill time. Average compared to the "Support the ****" movies.

A thoroughly enjoyable film, especially for James Garner fans. Some amusing moments but never played tongue in cheek.
Be warned that, in spite of the claim that the DVD is universal, it wouldn't play on my Region 2 machine.

Garner made 2 movie for disney. if your on the look out for good family movie that are fun, no cursing or nudity, a little action and a little romance... you want Castaway Cowboy, CC not One Little Indian, OLI.

CC is a nice movie about a cowboy that ends up stuck on an island. He shows the nice widow woman how to start a cattle ranch instead of tring to far or fish.

OLI is very boring. Not one of my three kids stayed for the end. And isn't that the true test of a movie. It isn't totally what mom or I like, it is also what they will like enough to sit and watch and enjoy.

James Gardner makes this sporadic paced comedy putter along. It does have some good lines and pranks if you can stay awake with the dead fill time. Average compared to the "Support the ****" movies.

A thoroughly enjoyable film, especially for James Garner fans. Some amusing moments but never played tongue in cheek.
Be warned that, in spite of the claim that the DVD is universal, it wouldn't play on my Region 2 machine.

As a big-time Jodie Foster fan, I try to watch any movie she appears in, yet I left BackTrack sitting on my shelf for basically several years before popping it in the old VCR (and, for the record, I have the 1992 Director's Cut version on VHS). After hearing a reviewer I respect heap praise upon this film, I knew there must be something there that never came across to me on the box cover. Actually, the film was better than I expected, yet it is not a film that distinguished itself in my eyes as anything very special. Jodie Foster is, of course, terrific as always; Dennis Hopper does not wig out too many times; and a most interesting cast of characters come and go along the way. The problem I have is with the characterization, which is not sufficient in my eyes to describe the transformation of Jodie Foster's character in the course of the events that play out.

Foster plays Anne Benton, an up-and-coming young artist (who uses a most unusual medium for her art) who forgets all about the front tire that blows out and almost causes her to wreck her car when she accidentally witnesses a gang-land hit. Luckily, the Mafia bad guys in this movie can never seem to hit a moving target, so Anne escapes and goes immediately to the police, unaware of the true nature of this particular homicide until two hit men break into her home in an attempt to kill her and the police start expounding upon the virtues of the federal witness protection program. She decides to make a run for it and try to build a new life elsewhere on her own. The police want her as a witness, and the Mafia family run by Mr. Avoca ( an aged Vincent Price) just wants her silenced. The Mafia man for the job is Milo (Dennis Hopper), an accomplished hit man who begins tracking Anne down as she moves across the country. By the time he finds here, though, Milo has fallen in love with her, which is something of a no-no for a man in his profession. He and Anne do not seem to be a natural match by any stretch of the imagination, and thus their evolving relationship just never makes complete sense to me, especially from Anne's perspective, and this is my main point of contention here with the film. Anyway, the movie-long chase has to end somewhere, and the filmmakers do succeed in pulling off a pretty satisfying conclusion.

BackTrack does deserve better than the relative obscurity in which it has lain, although I would not consider this a great film by any means. It is worth a look just for the surprising number of famous faces that grace the screen; besides Foster and Hopper you will see Charlie Sheen, Dean Stockwell (who speaks in one of the most ridiculous put-on voices I have ever heard), the aforementioned Vincent Price, Joe Pesci, and none other than Bob Dylan. I love Bob Dylan and his music, but he really does not possess the charisma or talent necessary to be an actor. Still, it is quite a hoot to see him pop up unexpectedly in the film in a small but quite memorable little scene. All told, BackTrack does have a few interesting things to show the viewer above and beyond the sight of a young Jodie Foster working her magic in front of the cameras (without her clothes at one point, for those who care about that sort of thing). I would not rush out and try to find a copy of the movie, but if it ever passes your way, it is certainly worth a couple hours' of your free time.

We rented this video of the movie Backtrack starring Dennis Hopper who also directed and Jodie Foster. It was a very strange movie and I don't always like movies that are strange but I liked this movie a lot and highly recommend it! Jodie Foster plays a woman named Anne who is a conceptual artist who saw a mob hit and becomes the target of a hit man named Milo played by Dennis Hopper, Milo has been hired to kill her and he stalks Anne and kidnaps her but winds up falling in love with her. It is a very interesting movie but it isn't for everyones taste but I think if you give it a chance you might like it and I think the critics are too hard on this movie!

I am disappointed to hear that the DVD is crummy, I hope they make a better wide-screen DVD that is not edited and has real wide-screen and not fake wide-screen.

If you are a fan of Bob Dylan you might be interested to know that he has a small roll in this movie, he plays an artist friend of Jodie Foster's character.

I've seen both movies because I am a fan of Dennis Hopper's and was curious as to the differences in the two versions. The shorter, European, Japanese, release is much better. I tend to think that a director's cut must be better because it's the director's cut but that's simply not the case. After doing some investigating, I discovered that when Vestron took over the post-production on the film, Mr. Hopper's version wasn't working for them. Most of the story didn't make sense and was being told by the use of songs, which they eventually dropped, in order to recut the movie and record a new score. It is interesting to see the differences, though, but I prefer the shorter version and the orchestral score by Curt Sobel is more in keeping with the film noir setting of the film. Jody's shower scene looks good in both versions.

As a big-time Jodie Foster fan, I try to watch any movie she appears in, yet I left BackTrack sitting on my shelf for basically several years before popping it in the old VCR (and, for the record, I have the 1992 Director's Cut version on VHS). After hearing a reviewer I respect heap praise upon this film, I knew there must be something there that never came across to me on the box cover. Actually, the film was better than I expected, yet it is not a film that distinguished itself in my eyes as anything very special. Jodie Foster is, of course, terrific as always; Dennis Hopper does not wig out too many times; and a most interesting cast of characters come and go along the way. The problem I have is with the characterization, which is not sufficient in my eyes to describe the transformation of Jodie Foster's character in the course of the events that play out.

Foster plays Anne Benton, an up-and-coming young artist (who uses a most unusual medium for her art) who forgets all about the front tire that blows out and almost causes her to wreck her car when she accidentally witnesses a gang-land hit. Luckily, the Mafia bad guys in this movie can never seem to hit a moving target, so Anne escapes and goes immediately to the police, unaware of the true nature of this particular homicide until two hit men break into her home in an attempt to kill her and the police start expounding upon the virtues of the federal witness protection program. She decides to make a run for it and try to build a new life elsewhere on her own. The police want her as a witness, and the Mafia family run by Mr. Avoca ( an aged Vincent Price) just wants her silenced. The Mafia man for the job is Milo (Dennis Hopper), an accomplished hit man who begins tracking Anne down as she moves across the country. By the time he finds here, though, Milo has fallen in love with her, which is something of a no-no for a man in his profession. He and Anne do not seem to be a natural match by any stretch of the imagination, and thus their evolving relationship just never makes complete sense to me, especially from Anne's perspective, and this is my main point of contention here with the film. Anyway, the movie-long chase has to end somewhere, and the filmmakers do succeed in pulling off a pretty satisfying conclusion.

BackTrack does deserve better than the relative obscurity in which it has lain, although I would not consider this a great film by any means. It is worth a look just for the surprising number of famous faces that grace the screen; besides Foster and Hopper you will see Charlie Sheen, Dean Stockwell (who speaks in one of the most ridiculous put-on voices I have ever heard), the aforementioned Vincent Price, Joe Pesci, and none other than Bob Dylan. I love Bob Dylan and his music, but he really does not possess the charisma or talent necessary to be an actor. Still, it is quite a hoot to see him pop up unexpectedly in the film in a small but quite memorable little scene. All told, BackTrack does have a few interesting things to show the viewer above and beyond the sight of a young Jodie Foster working her magic in front of the cameras (without her clothes at one point, for those who care about that sort of thing). I would not rush out and try to find a copy of the movie, but if it ever passes your way, it is certainly worth a couple hours' of your free time.

We rented this video of the movie Backtrack starring Dennis Hopper who also directed and Jodie Foster. It was a very strange movie and I don't always like movies that are strange but I liked this movie a lot and highly recommend it! Jodie Foster plays a woman named Anne who is a conceptual artist who saw a mob hit and becomes the target of a hit man named Milo played by Dennis Hopper, Milo has been hired to kill her and he stalks Anne and kidnaps her but winds up falling in love with her. It is a very interesting movie but it isn't for everyones taste but I think if you give it a chance you might like it and I think the critics are too hard on this movie!

I am disappointed to hear that the DVD is crummy, I hope they make a better wide-screen DVD that is not edited and has real wide-screen and not fake wide-screen.

If you are a fan of Bob Dylan you might be interested to know that he has a small roll in this movie, he plays an artist friend of Jodie Foster's character.

I've seen both movies because I am a fan of Dennis Hopper's and was curious as to the differences in the two versions. The shorter, European, Japanese, release is much better. I tend to think that a director's cut must be better because it's the director's cut but that's simply not the case. After doing some investigating, I discovered that when Vestron took over the post-production on the film, Mr. Hopper's version wasn't working for them. Most of the story didn't make sense and was being told by the use of songs, which they eventually dropped, in order to recut the movie and record a new score. It is interesting to see the differences, though, but I prefer the shorter version and the orchestral score by Curt Sobel is more in keeping with the film noir setting of the film. Jody's shower scene looks good in both versions.

I had not remembered seeing any of these cartoons as a child. As an Addams Family fanatic (tv series, movies) I thought I would really enjoy the animated series. Boy, was I wrong. The jokes weren't funny - the animatation was very bland and the voices (except for Fester) were AWFUL. Even the sounds were just typical Hanna Barbara - boring. Imagine taking Scooby Doo, the same type of art work, same bad jokes (which worked great in the Addams Family series and films, but not for this whiney voice used for Gomez in the cartoon) and trying to make Addams Family out of it! Yuck! You wind up with something that would not even be interesting to the average 3 year old. The only good thing I have to say about it is it was so bad that it is saving me money - I feel absolutely NO need to collect/buy the rest of them.

I thought this was a cute movie. The Addams family have decided to move to New York, and live in Centural Park, where they would own a museam free all the zoo animals, and scare off tourists. But two bad guys are out to get them! So, be sure to check this movie out!

I enjoyed this movie because it depicted a true situation from the 1800's - young women marrying older men for security, social status, etc. However, marrying for love is still a better choice. John Lithgow was a bit younger - you might enjoy seeing him in this drama. Not a great movie, but still enjoyable.

A savagely bad movie, adapting John Irving's novel wherein the baby boomer generation attempts to digest the muddled narcissism of the '70s. That description, however, gives this flick too much credit. Mostly this is just a terrible film -- badly written, uninvolving and lurching about without apparent purpose, and without an emotional center. An incestual relationship between brother and sister, amid a wacky, unconventional family is supposed to somehow elicit our sympathies -- but its execution is as flat an unbelievable as the rest of the film. The cast, however, has some nice celeb-spotting eye-candy: Jody Foster, Wallace Shawn, and a 9-year old Seth Green. Rob Lowe is the movie's sole saving grace... As the perv-bound sibling, he was certainly breaking out of his brat pack bimbo typecasting; it's fascinating to see him working on the quirks and mannerisms he later built into a solid acting style. And at age 19, he's pretty hunky... easy on the eyes. But other than a chance to see a bunch of famous folks at an odd moment in their careers, this film is a total waste of time. (See also: "The Royal Tennenbaums.")

This movie is quite odd, but never boring. I didn't read the John Irving book from which it was adapted, but I can guess that, as is typical of the author, the book must juggle a multitude of characters and sub-plots. Unfortunately, it really doesn't work as a movie and ends up feeling like a series of loosely connected vignettes. The plot speeds along much too quickly and characters appear and disappear without much reason. The movie does, however, have a few positive points...

First, the cast is first-rate and Rob Lowe has one of his most unusual roles (this was his third movie after "The Outsiders" and "Class"), as a confused young man lusting after his sister (Jodie Foster, who's ok). Paul McCrane (ER's Dr. Romano) has one of his few relatively large film roles. The movie looks great, with beautiful location shooting with Canada substituting for New Hampshire and Vienna. Finally, this is probably the only place you can see Matthew Modine being raped by a person in a bear suit. Overall, a very strange journey that makes little sense and doesn't bear up to much scrutiny. A definite disappointment.

I first wanted to see this movie because I am a fan of Jodie Foster. I rented it and found it a little muddled. I liked it, I was just confused as to what was going on in certain parts. After watching the movie, I decided to read the book (which is very, very good!!!), and I rented the movie again after a while and found it much more enjoyable. My advice is to read the book before you see the movie!!! It's an oddly entertaining film... but you might get lost without the help of John Irving's novel.

The premise for the film is intriguing. It is based upon the Victoria Thompson murder trial that took place in New Zealand during the late nineteenth century. Victoria is raised is some sort of orphanage from birth. At the age of seventeen, it is arranged for her to marry Mr. Thompson, a weird, older man whom she has never before met. She dutifully marries him, and when she comes of age goes to live with him in his home, which is run by his two creepy servants. Victoria soon discovers just how weird her husband really is. She ultimately takes the bull by the horns and, consequently, finds herself standing trial for his murder by the time she is nineteen years old.

Jodie Foster places the role of Victoria Thompson, as if she were doing so under duress. She takes a character that is potentially sympathetic and makes her merely pathetic, leaving the viewer cold. John Lithgow fares somewhat better, as he does a credible job playing the weird Mr. Thompson, doing the best he can with the material with which he has to work. The film, unfortunately, is choppy and poorly edited, the story so muddled as to be nearly incomprehensible. The direction seems to be almost nonexistant, as it looks like it is every man for himself.

This film was originally released under the title, "Mesmerized". Word about the film must have traveled fast, as bad news so often does. When the video was released, it was retitled as "Shocked". The only thing shocking about this film is that it was ever released in the first place. It is a complete travesty. All in all, this video is not worth buying. The only reason this was not rated one star is due to Jon Lithgow's performance. If you are not a Jon Lithgow fan, deduct one star.